Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed. (*)(*)

14. No SMS or Social Media Content (including Reddit)

This includes direct linking to reddit threads, reddit comments, other subreddits, facebook profiles, twitter profiles, tweets, embedded tweets, and screenshots of the above, including text messages, omegle, snapchat, instagram and others. This also includes any other sites that may be considered social network sites. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Serial reposters may be filtered

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

People would be worried about the middle aged men at the Miley Cyrus or Selena Gomez concert not because of the performer, but because of the audience. The performer is totally safe. The audience would have lots of 14-16 year old girls in it, and they would be the ones at risk.

Twilight events are not going to be full of 14-16 year old boys. They are mostly for women, and women of all ages. So nobody's really worried for anybody. The equivalent to Twilight would be men going to a Magic: the Gathering tournament - ostensibly for teenagers, but in practice for a wide population cohort.

What would be equivalent to the Miley Cyrus concert would be if that same group of 40-year old women went to a middle school soccer tournament cheering for the boys' teams, or to the Magic Tournament, or to another event packed with teenage boys, like if they cougared out at a Pokemon convention (okay, maybe that years ago - I don't really know what teenage boys actually do with their time). Then people might very well call the police.

I bet people's behaviors would be pretty similar for both the men and the women in those situations - lots of scowls on the faces of parents, lots of mean things said, mostly behind people's backs, and potentially the adults being asked to leave or escorted out.

Twilight isn't predatory, because nobody is actually at risk. It's the same thing with guys who fawn over Emma Watson.

If you had a bunch of men in public holding a sign that said EMMA WATSON DADS, someone would call the cops.

Rampant sexism is fun in society; women can do whatever they want, but when men do it, it's bad! If a woman showed up at a Magic: The Gathering get together with a seemingly honest interest in the game, people would be like, whoa that's a cool woman. If a man showed up at a Miley Cyrus concert with a seemingly honest interest in the performer, people would still flip their shit.

There is a chance that both of those people honestly enjoy those things. But while the woman would actively have to start going after little boys to creep people out, the man wouldn't have to do shit.

Nobody called the cops when dudes were all swapping pictures and YouTube links of teenage Linsday Lohan showing her cleavage on Saturday Night Live (Hell, nobody called the cops on the 40-year old men hooting and hollering in the audience). Nobody called the cops when teenage Britney Spears was slutting up her schoolgirl outfit in Baby, One More Time. Nobody will call the cops over a bunch of guys at a Harry Potter movie showing with pictures of teenage Emma Watson on their T-shirts. They might think they are creepy, but nobody is calling the police. That's just crazy.

Nobody called the police over /r/jailbait, for Christ's sake - and that was after an expose on national news.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in where adult men don't drool publicly over famous teenage girls with zero repercussions. It's a huge part of the entertainment industry.

The only reason people would call the cops would be if they felt their own children or children they were responsible for as teachers were in danger, and a group of older women would take heat for that too.

EDIT -- And if a man showed up at a Miley Cyrus concert with serious interest in her music, people would assume he is gay.

Seriously don't know why you were down voted. In the books the characters are supposedly 17 and 18... but none of the actors they are fawning over at below the age of consent. Reddit just really hate Twilight is all.

Are we, the website community who are still largely butthurt over the removal of /r/jailbait, really going to pretend like there aren't plenty of older men drooling over hot teenage females on a daily basis without anyone getting arrested?

Movie #2 is when Lautner started going for the improved physique. He was born on February 11, 1992. Filming started on March 23, 2009. 23/3/2009 - 2/11/1992 = 17 years, 1 month, and 13 days. In the US, 17 fits the age of consent in all but 11 states.

You are correct on the age of consent. California also doesn't have a close in age law, which is very unusual. The 2009 Comic Con was before the release of New Moon, so their fandom was aimed toward a 23 year old.

And Edward is 100 and something (no idea how old exactly, I gave up halfway through the first Twilight book). So even if they were squealing at the character, they still wouldn't be dribbling over a 17-year old.

Well Robert Pattinson is 25, and its quite normal for men in their 40's to watch babysitter porn.(18 year olds) Or schoolgirl porn, or barely legal porn, or college co-ed porn. Hell Howard Stern is fifty and he brags all the time about being addicted to babysitter porn and there is a whole corporation based off his popularity.

I did upvote but i find the concept of this meme silly because everybody must know that the men reffered to are creeps that scream because they are horny on small girls, while theese mom's screem because the beatiful romantic shit involved. It's different.

Sadly, this isn't allowed to be a double standard. It's "hot" and "sexy" for older women to want to molest minors. It's just creepy for men to want to do the same.

Well, I think most people recognize that, logically, it is a double standard, but people on both sides tolerate or encourage it. Many men say "niiiice" when an attractive middle-aged teacher has sex with a male student, but usually decry cases in which adulte male teachers have sexual contact with female students.

That many men endorse "cougars," and women tolerate or accept them as empowering women does not change the fact that it is a double standard. Most people don't say, "way to rail that highschool girl, Mr. Samuels!" though there are many exceptions, I'm sure.

I'm going to be downvoted to hell for this, but there is a biological reason for the double standard. Evolution doesn't care what is just or fair. It's all about the genes and how one guarantees their survival.

If you ignore the modern society and observe the animal world, you can see how gender roles come to play. Male's role in is fairly simple: You beat the crap out of competition, prove that you're the alpha-male and have sex with as many females as possible. All you need to know about the females is that they're healthy (perhaps why men are seen as superficial as we are) and able to produce healthy offspring. For females this is much more complicated. If you pick your mate poorly, you might have to wait for a long time before you get another chance, if ever.

I know it is more complicated than that, but I think the general idea is that men have depended more on volume in our species past, and women on quality. And our biological past is still strongly reflected socially. The idea being that men can't pick poorly.

Or so people would like to think. Intellect only outweighs instinct when people's base needs are comfortably provided for.

Take away the comforts, and instinct returns: the need to protect ourselves, the need to feed ourselves, shelter ourselves and ensure our survival. We are all just animals when the shit hits the fan. People will easily murder intruders intent on taking their essentials, or harming their family. People will harm others to provide the essentials for their own. Instinct returns when survival is on the line. I don't think it would be very good for the survival or our species for us to consciously evolve away from that.

And you know how people often say "men think with their dick"? Instinct again, rearing it's self-preservation-minded head.

But many people will turn into animals far sooner than others. At the top of the food chain are the most capable animals (the rich) at the bottom of the chain are the most incapable animals (the poor). All the middle people have better control of their animal selves.

No, it wouldn't be good. I think you missed the point of what he was saying altogether. Instincts exist for a reason. You CAN'T evolve past them. Without good instincts, a group wouldn't reproduce, meaning no evolution.

How much tribal warfare are you engaged in these days? Engage in the conversation rather than jumping to an illogical extreme.

Anyone who says that intellect outweighs instinct for the majority of humans, needs to do some studying into psychology and neuroscience, because they have little insight into how their own brains work and how affected they actually are by instinct.

What a quaint view of sexual selection. There's a lot of room for beta males. Many male birds occupy a "friend zone" with females that are paired to alphas. Then, when the alpha isn't around, the beta leaves the friend zone for a little bit and improves his fitness.

Also, if you shift the perspective slightly, this double standard actually favors men. As a young man, I'm angry when an older man takes a girl in my age bracket, as that reduces the pool of girls available to me. I am happy when an older woman takes a guy in my age bracket, because that reduces my competition.

According to OK cupid, as I grow older, I will continue to like young women, but I'll just stop telling people about this fact. In other words, the double standard exists because all men want young women, but they don't want other men to have them.

And yet there are plenty, and I mean plenty, of people out there that act like it's just fine. Worse, there are people out there that wish that they were in the minor's position, that something like that happened to them. People will be envious of a minor being molested by an older female and disgusted when it is vice versa. It's the society we live in.

Women are socially "allowed" to do "manly" things though. If a guy does "girly" things, he's labeled as weird and gay. Why can't I use a purse, read twilight, light scented candles, use bodysplash, watch Gossip Girl, and wear pink without being socially chastised. Though on the bright side I guess its better than the hardships women face professionally :/

If I didn't give a shit about what people thought, I'd quit my job, stop going to school, stop working out, and sit at home playing world of warcraft all day. at some point you have to start caring about your image

I don't have any written sources but just today we had the HR manager of TNTexpress giving us a guest seminar at the uni.

He told us the reason women get paid less and have trouble getting promotions is because they are actually more self-reflecting and when discussing paygrades etc. they are less likely to ask for more they are worth or thinking they are worth more to the company.

so basically what you guys are saying, is that women DON'T have disadvantages when it comes to working? You just blew my fucking mind. Whenever I complain about being a guy, the women come out of the woodwork about how much harder it is to be a working woman.

Every study I've ever seen fails to take things into account like women that take jobs specifically for the benefits for their family, whereas single men would just take higher paying jobs and forgo the benefits all-together. Or jobs that women just won't do (just like men aren't really going to be day-care moms.) Which whether it's sexual differences coming into play or not is irrelevant (of course we have differences because biologically we are) it's hardly a conspiracy to keep women down.

It's hard to compare like for like jobs when it comes to gender because everyone is looking for different things. Also, how many women are going to be professional NBA players? Or how many men are going to be professional glamour models?

This is largely due to maternity leave and the risk an employer takes in hiring a woman who is much more likely to leave the workforce for many years. When/if they do return they aren't as experienced and have spent many years away from the job and aren't as sharp and therefore should get paid less.

It's always bother me that people don't take that into account when they talk about gender disparity. It's riskier for employers to hire women.

In many societies, young girls are married off to very old men. It's normalized. Here, young girls are overprotected by their parents to the point that it's illegal for them to have sex with men older than 18 until they reach that age unless they have their parents' consent. There's no middle ground. And, in both cases, young men are expected to defend themselves, regardless of their ability to do so. Not a good situation for gender equality. /feminist rant

I want to make this happen. I want to assemble a protest for something having to do with 17 year old girls and bring all my male friends that at that time will be above the age of consent and watch what happens.